Brian, > On Nov 8, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > For new RRtypes, registries, registrars, and their provisioning services do > NOT need to support them; the new types are in the zones only.
DY> (Experiencing a "DUH!" moment.) Yes, of course. It's zone data so only those entities handling zone data need to care. In my still-annoyingly-jet-lagged mind, I made the classic mistake of equating "registrars" with "DNS hosting operators" because so many registrars are *also* DNS hosting providers. > New RRtypes which do not require any "additional" processing, do NOT strictly > speaking require resolver support, since resolvers handle unknown RRtypes. > (Mark A can quote you the RFC, and I think has recently.) DY> Ah, interesting. Where the proposed HTTP RRtype has behavior similar to the CNAME record, my assumption would be that resolver software would need to know what to do once it receives the record. For that reason, wouldn't all the resolvers (or at least an extremely high %) need to be upgraded to support the new record? > On the plus side, I can confirm at least one hosting/authority service will > do this as soon as a stable spec is available (i.e. HTTP and a code point > early allocation). DY> :-) Good to know! Dan -- Dan York Director, Content & Web Strategy, Internet Society y...@isoc.org +1-802-735-1624 Jabber: y...@jabber.isoc.org Skype: danyork http://twitter.com/danyork http://www.internetsociety.org/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
